Oral sulfate solution versus low-volume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The quality of colonoscopy is significantly influenced by the effectiveness of bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bowel cleansing between a new oral sulfate solution (OSS) and standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG).

METHODS

This single center, randomized, superiority study recruited 679 outpatients who were assigned to either the new OSS group (Group A) or standard PEG group (Group B). The quality of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared between the two groups. Furthermore, data pertaining to the duration of bowel preparation, patient tolerability, and the occurrence of adverse events were also analyzed.

RESULTS

According to BBPS scores, group A demonstrated significantly higher bowel preparation cleanliness than group B. Additionally, group A achieved superior bowel cleansing, as evidenced by a greater proportion of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 compared to group B (75.3% vs. 55.2%, P < 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported during examinations in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnesium sulfate, sodium sulfate, and potassium sulfate concentrated oral solution is a novel, safe, and effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 20/02/2024 (clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2400081004).

Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.

Conclusion

OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerance of Split Dose Oral Sulfate Solution Versus Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Versus Single Dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study

Background

The quality of bowel preparation is one of the key determinants of a successful colonoscopy. Bowel preparation regimens have evolved greatly over the past few decades, with attempts to improve the efficiency and tolerability; still an ideal agent or regimen continues to be oblivious. To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of three bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: split dose of oral sulfate solution (OSS), split dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG), and same-day single dose PEG.

Methods

This study was a randomized, single-blind control design with three study groups. Group A received a split dose of OSS, group B received a split dose of PEG, and Group C received a single dose of PEG for bowel preparation. The quality of preparation was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and the adverse effects and tolerance were noted. The data were compared statistically for any significant difference between the regimens.

Results

Mean total BBPS scores were 8.08, 7.52, and 7.92 for groups A, B, and C, respectively (P=0.076). Segmental BBPS scores were statistically similar for the right and transverse colon but differed for the left colon (A: B: C=2.79: 2.54: 2.75; P<0.01). Gastrointestinal side effects and electrolyte disturbances were similar across the three groups. Split-dose preparations were associated with more significant sleep disturbances than single-dose PEG (P<0.001). Patients who received OSS reported more taste intolerance (P<0.01), while those who received single PEG reported more volume intolerance (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Split-dose OSS, split-dose PEG, and single-dose PEG regimens provide adequate and comparable bowel preparation for colonoscopy with good patient tolerance and no significant adverse effects. Overnight PEG and OSS preparations were associated with more substantial sleep disturbances. OSS is associated with more taste intolerance, while single PEG is associated with more volume intolerance.

Efficacy of Oral Sulfate Tablet and 2 L-Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized KASID Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens.

RESULTS

The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005017.

Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Databases for randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing OSS with PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on 22 August 2023. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs with 4526 patients were included. OSS was comparable with PEG regarding adequate bowel preparation [P = 0.16, odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 1.51], I2 = 0%]. However, OSS showed obvious priority in excellent bowel preparation (P < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.27, 2.05], I2 = 0%) and total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) [P = 0.02, weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.27, 95% CI [0.05, 0.50], I2 = 84%]. Additionally, the detection rate of polyps (P = 0.001, OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.15, 1.80], I2 = 0%) and adenoma (P = 0.007, OR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06, 1.42], I2 = 0%) was significantly higher in the OSS group. The two groups showed comparable incidence of adverse events except for a higher incidence of dizziness (P = 0.02, OR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.08, 2.83], I2 = 11%) was indicated in the OSS group. Moreover, OSS was associated with a higher satisfaction score (P = 0.02, WMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.15], I2 = 70%). In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed both the conventional boundary and trial sequential monitoring boundary and the required information size has been reached for excellent bowel preparation and total BBPS.

CONCLUSION

The current data demonstrated that OSS was associated with better quality of bowel preparation. More clinical trials are still needed to confirm other outcomes.

The Efficacy of 480 ml Oral Sodium Sulfate for Improving Insufficient Bowel Preparation of Colonoscopy with High-Concentrated Polyethylene Glycol

OBJECTIVES

Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is used for bowel preparation (BP) during colonoscopy. The way of taking this agent can be used a same-day regimen (only on the day of colonoscopy) and split regimen (the day before and on the day of colonoscopy) for receiving it. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of a same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS for insufficient bowel preparation (BP) with high-concentrated polyethylene glycol (H-PEG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted from December 2021 to December 2022 at three related institutions on patients aged ≥ 20 years with a fair or poor Aronchick score of BP with 1 l H-PEG in previous colonoscopy. All patients received a low-residual diet and 10 ml of 0.75% picosulfate sodium a day before the colonoscopy and 480 ml of OSS and ≥1 l of water 3 hours before the colonoscopy. We analyzed the rate of improvement with OSS compared to H-PEG and other efficacies, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

We evaluated 125 cases (77 males) with an average age of 72.1 ± 8.8 years. The completion rate of 480 ml of OSS was 97.6% (122/125). The improvement rate of BP showing good or excellent score with OSS was 70.4% (88/125). Compared OSS with previous H-PEG, the insertion time (min) was 7.0 ± 4.8 vs. 8.1 ± 6.0 (p = 0.01), and the adenoma detection rates were 67.2% vs. 63.2% (p = 0.05). The cleansing time (min) was 131 ± 46 vs. 165 ± 53 (p < 0.01). The rate of AE with OSS was 10.4% (13/125). There were no significant differences about AE in age and gender. The tolerance of OSS compared with H-PEG (good/similar/bad) was 72.0%/24.8%/3.2% (amounts), 26.4%/39.2%/34.4% (taste), and 76.8%/10.4%/12.8% (overall preference), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS effectively improved the insufficient BP of 1 l H-PEG.

Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Although oral sulfate solution (OSS) has been revealed to be not only safe and efficacious but also noninferior to polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC), it is unclear whether OSS can ultimately increase the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the effect of OSS on PDR and ADR during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative effect of OSS versus PEG + ASC on the PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation time (CIT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation score were also evaluated. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3.0 was used to perform statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 2059 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that OSS significantly increased the PDR (47.34% vs. 40.14%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, P = 0.01) and ADR (44.60% vs. 38.14%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33, P = 0.01) during colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effects of OSS on PDR and ADR were consistent among patients with mean age >55 years and with body mass index <25 kg/m² receiving outpatient colonoscopy, morning colonoscopy, and the 2-L bowel preparation protocol. Meanwhile, patients receiving OSS had a beneficial bowel preparation score.

CONCLUSION

Compared with polyethylene glycol-based regimens, the OSS bowel preparation regimen significantly increased the PDR and ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy.